Julien Pierre wrote:
> You may not be aware of that fact, but in a typical secure web server today, the
> overhead of doing encryption represents about 90% of CPU cycles spent. This means
> a web server is an order of magnitude slower if it has to server secure
> connections vs non-secure.
>
> In turn, your proposal would result in an average tenfold increase in the
> hardware requirement for servers, as well as waste of energy to power all those
> CPUs, all for no good reason at all. Or the alternative would be a tenfold
> increase in average web server latency, given no hardware upgrade.
Just because a client always asks to upgrade doesn't mean the server has to obey.
--
/==============================================================\
|John Stracke | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=============================================|
|eCal Corp. |"HTTP is what happens in the absence of good |
|francis@ecal.com|design." -- Keith Moore |
\==============================================================/